2

3

4

5

6

7

ABSTRACTS (listed alphabetically by author) “Outsourcing Agent-Relative Reasons” Saba Bazargan (UC San Diego) I will argue that it is possible to ‘outsource’ your agent-relative reasons for actions to someone else. In such a case, someone else has a reason to act in furtherance of your agent-relative reasons. He or she becomes a proxy by which you can enact what you have agent-relative reason to do. Some will maintain that this is conceptually impossible; agent-relative reasons have reason-giving force only to the individual ineliminably referenced in the content of that reason. Accordingly, such reasons cannot be ‘outsourced’ to others. They are only operative first-personally. But I will argue that the content of our associative duties belies the notion that agent-relative reasons are necessarily first-personal. Hence we have a conceptual reason in favor of regarding agent-relative reasons as capable of being outsourced. But there is an ethical one as well: by presuming that agent-relative reasons cannot be ‘outsourced’ we do an injustice to the severely handicapped who are unable to undertake or fulfill the sorts of agent-relative permissions we all have. An upshot of my argument is this: once we come to see that agent-relative reasons can indeed be outsourced to others, we can better explicate the normativity implicit in a range of second-personal relationships, from long-standing familial ones, to contractual professional ones, to informal fleeting ones.

><><><>< “Ability, Obligation, and Blame” John Biro (University of Florida) Whether the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) is derivable from the principle that 'ought' implies 'can' (OIC) has been a subject of much debate. (Copp, Yaffe) It is assumed by both sides that if PAP is to be true, it must follow from OIC. Here I question this assumption. First I discuss the relation between OIC and moral dilemmas, arguing that on a proper understanding of the latter, OIC rules out their possibility: one cannot be obligated to perform two incompatible actions. If that is so, one is not failing to do what one ought in not performing one of them and it is not true that when faced with a choice between two such actions, "…no matter what the agent does, she does something wrong, something that … is an appropriate ground for condemnation, blame, or guilt." (McCord). Giving up on moral dilemmas is, however, a high price to pay for absolving such an agent of blame. Fortunately, as I go on to argue, there is an alternative: by rejecting OIC (which there are independent reasons to do), we can maintain that the agent has both obligations even when he cannot perform both actions. However, the fact that he cannot suffices his not being blameworthy for not performing one of them. This shows that PAP is true independently of OIC.

8

><><><><

“Moral agency, identification and the capacity for mental time travel “ Filip Čeč (University of Rijeka) According to a philosophical tradition two main conditions have been assumed to be necessary for deeming an agent morally responsible for an action: the agent should have control over the action and the agent should know the nature of the action. Several authors have argued convincingly that the control that is required for moral responsibility involves the agent’s ownership of her motives that stems from her identification with them. (Velleman 2006, Frankfurt 1988). The notion of identification with one’s reasons has been expanded in various ways and has generated alternative accounts of moral responsibility (Watson 1982; Wolf 1990; Fischer and Ravizza 1998; Velleman 1989, Velleman 2006). In this paper I will explore the role that the capacity for mental time travel, a form of controlled activity undertaken by an agent usually for the purpose of evaluating the past or planning the future (Kennett & Matthews 2009), plays in the process of identification and consequently in the process of attribution of moral responsibility. I will critically explore how impairments in this capacity might create problems in the constitution of our self-image. Finally, I’ll examine how this notion can be applied as a reply to one specific form of luck objection that emerges within the free will debate: the disappearing agent objection.

><><><>< "Future Autonomous Weapons Will Make Moral Judgments" Zac Cogley (Northern Michigan University) My aim in this paper is to respond to two recent arguments against the deployment of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) by Duncan Purves, Ryan Jenkins, and Bradley J. Strawser. I do this by providing a sketch of how the moral judgment of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) might work by appealing to recent results in autonomous computing. I show that recent results in deep computing—specifically, the success of the program AlphaGo at mastering the game Go—suggests that future AWS will be able to approximate the human capacity for moral judgment and allow AWS to make targeting decisions for the right reasons. AlphaGo couples a search tree—a set of rules that describe all possible moves in the game—with two deep neural networks. I argue that one network allows AlphaGo to make judgments about the strength of different positions. The other allows AlphaGo to see the reasonable moves given the current state of the game. While we are a long way from the creation of an AWS that will actually have the relevant moral capabilities, we have no principled reason to think that one cannot be developed by extrapolation from the features of AlphaGo and other deep learning systems.

9

><><><><

"Wronging, Blame, and Forgiveness" Julia Driver (Washington University, St. Louis) In this paper I argue against a popular view of forgiveness by holding that there are some cases -- certain tragic dilemma cases -- in which a person may be wronged by an action that is not itself wrong. Blaming a person is apt only when the person has done something that is all things considered wrong. Thus, in these tragic dilemma cases, it is not apt to blame the person who wronged by performing an all things considered right action. Yet it also seems that the person who has been wronged is in a position to forgive the wrong. But one view of forgiveness holds that forgiveness renders blame inapt. Yet, in the sorts of cases I discuss, there is a point to forgiveness even when blame is already inapt.

><><><>< “Authors Meet Critic” session on The Moral Rights of Animals (eds. Mylan Engel Jr. and Gary Lynn Comstock) Authors: Mylan Engel Jr. (Northern Illinois), Ramona Ilea (Pacific U.), and Alastair Norcross (Colorado). Critic: Amelie Stuart (Graz) The Moral Rights of Animals (2016) employs different ethical lenses, including classical deontology, libertarianism, commonsense morality, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and the capabilities approach, to explore the strong animal rights view, according to which animals have moral rights equal in strength to the moral rights of humans. The book is divided into three parts. Part I explores the philosophical bases for the strong animal rights view, while also addressing what are undoubtedly some of the most serious challenges to the strong animal rights stance, including the challenges posed by rights nihilism, the “kind” argument against animal rights, and the problem of predation. Part II focuses on the comparative value of lives. Any adequate animal ethic—whether a rights-based ethic or an alternative animal ethic—must confront the issue of whether or not animal lives are as important as human lives. Part III explores the practical import of animal rights both from a social policy standpoint and from the standpoint of personal ethical decisions concerning what to eat and how to live.

In his contribution to Part I, Mylan first defends the conditional claim that if all humans have rights, then many nonhuman animals also have rights. He then argues that even if moral rights do not exist, we still have significant direct moral duties to animals, including the duty not to kill them for food. In his contribution to Part II, Alastair argues that while sentience (i.e., the ability to feel pain or experience pleasure) is necessary and sufficient for moral considerability, Regan’s psychologically richer, subject-of-a-life criterion has an important role to play in explaining the special harm that death is for certain beings. In her contribution to Part III, Ramona argues that

10

fusing Tom Regan’s rights view with Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach leads to a powerful theory that is both philosophically rigorous and practically useful for those working to bring about realistic and effective public policies aimed at improving animal treatment.

In her commentary, Amelie will focus her remarks primarily on the contributions by the three authors participating in the session. The authors will then respond in turn, followed by a Q&A session for all four panelists.

><><><>< “The Real Problem with Prepunishment” Preston Greene (Nanyang Tech) In a postpunishment legal system, agents are punished for crimes that they have committed. In a prepunishment legal system, agents are punished for crimes that they will or would commit. It has been assumed that the practice of prepunishment is confined to science fiction and philosophers’ imaginations, and therefore that it has only indirect relevance to debates in moral and legal theory. The first aim of the paper is to show that the ostensible differences between actual punishment practices and cases of prepunishment---even as they are presented in Philip K. Dick’s “Minority Report”---are nothing but smoke and mirrors. In fact, there is no morally-relevant difference between what happens in “Minority Report” and what often happens in real world cases involving the punishment of crimes such as attempted murder. If so, then arguments against prepunishment are actually grounds for vast reforms to our current legal systems. The second aim of the paper is to show that there are serious problems with prepunishment that stem from purely consequentialist considerations. Most importantly, prepunishment systems have no deterrent power. Each of these conclusions represents a major departure from the existing prepunishment literature, and they call for significant changes in our thinking about both the importance and moral status of prepunishment.

><><><>< “Mysticism, Meditation, and the Possibility of a Mystical Ethics (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Cross)” Amber Griffioen, University of Konstanz The notion of the “mystical path” features prominently in many mystical traditions within (as well as outside of) the Abrahamic religions. In Christian mysticism, quite predictably, the road to experiential union with God is generally depicted as proceeding through Christ. Yet the ways the mystical path is depicted – even from within medieval Christian traditions – are incredibly diverse, sometimes even graphic. In this presentation, I will examine two interesting accounts of the mystical path from 14th-century German mysticism and look at the ways in which visual imagery is used as

11

a kind of “meditative thought experiment” intended to both cognitively and affectively (re-)orient the meditator toward Truth and the Good. I will then raise some difficulties for understanding these (heavily Neoplatonic) depictions of the mystical path as providing a kind of normative ethical theory for the Christian devotional life.

><><><>< “Justification, Intention, and Moral Mereology” Matthew Hanser (UC Santa Barbara) Sometimes an agent is justified, and so acts permissibly, in doing something pro tanto wrongful. How does such justification work? Some hold that the agent acts permissibly if the right sort of “external” facts obtain—if a reason sufficient to justify the pro tanto wrongful action exists, or is available in the circumstances. Others hold that this is not enough: the agent must also act for the justifying reason. Neither view is entirely satisfactory. I discuss this dispute and propose a new way of understanding justification.

><><><>< "Moral Fetishism and Responding to Reasons" Amelia Hicks (Kansas State) According to moral hedging, one ought to exercise caution when one is morally uncertain. However, some philosophers have recently argued that moral hedging requires that one exhibit the wrong kind of moral concern (namely, de dicto, as opposed to de re, moral concern). I'll call this objection the fetishism objection to moral hedging. Proponents of the fetishism objection often draw from a reasons-responsiveness account of the moral worth of actions, according to which (roughly) an action has moral worth only if one is motivated to perform that action by the reasons that morally justify the action. In my paper, I examine the relationship between the reasons-responsiveness view and the moral fetishism objection. First, I argue that one can consistently accept the reasons-responsiveness view while also accepting that one ought to exercise caution when morally uncertain; one can accept both by adopting a particular account of what we have objective moral reason to do. Second, I describe the two types of moral fetishism that are objectionable by the lights of a reasons-responsiveness account, and argue that moral hedging need not involve either type. Ultimately, I hope to show that those of us who accept reasons-responsiveness views about moral worth can accommodate the idea that epistemic humility---even about moral matters---is a moral virtue.

12

><><><>< “Neuropsychology and the criminal responsibility of psychopaths: a philosophical reassessment” Marko Jurjako and Luca Malatesti (University of Rijeka)

Recently it has been argued that certain neuropsychological findings about the decision-making, instrumental learning, and moral understanding in psychopathic offenders offer reasons to consider them not criminally responsible due to certain epistemic and volitional impairments. We reply to these arguments. Preliminary we defend an account on how neuropsychological data can be used to bear on insanity defenses. The basic tenet of this proposal is that the legal notion of control in these defenses should be taken to require as, necessary but not sufficient preconditions certain capacities that fall under the rubric of practical rationality. Then, in the light of such an account, we show that the so far available neuropsychological data at issue do not offer sufficient considerations for supporting a diminished responsibility or insanity defense in the case of psychopathic offenders.

><><><>< “What Role for Hypothetical Reasoning and Thought Experimentation in moral and political philosophy?” Friderik Klampfer (University of Maribor, Slovenia) Hypothetical reasoning has played a prominent role in the history of both moral and political philosophy. The increased use of more and more bizarre thought-experiments in contemporary analytic philosophy may have earned it bad reputation, but in fact even some fairly uncontroversial moral principles, from the Golden Rule to Kant’s Universalizability Test, as well as certain influential accounts of normative properties, from the social contract theories to contractualism and ethical anti-naturalism, require the activation of our capacity for imagination and counterfactual thinking. It does look, then, as if hypothetical reasoning is somehow indispensable for uncovering not just the underlying modal, but also normative structure of the world. And yet, as I will argue, not just the growing impatience with the current prevalence of philosophical thought experimentation, but also a certain degree of disillusionment over its past record, is warranted. Most famous philosophical thought-experiments have brought little, if any, insight into the perennial disputes, and hardly advanced philosophical inquiries. This is particularly true of the most divisive moral and political issues, where they abound. In the paper, I take up the task of identifying the causes of such failure. I begin by analysing some influential, but ultimately failed moral and political thought-experiments, from Plato’s Ring of Gyges to Joel Feinberg’s Nowheresville and Bus Ride.

13

There is no single reason for their failure, I contend, apart from a mistaken belief that they all seem to share in the evidential import of TE-generated intuitions. Next, I adduce some more principled reasons in support of such evidential pessimism. In the final section, I assess the potential of some alternatives to traditional thought experimentation, including the use of hypothetical reasoning to generate testable hypotheses, draw theoretical implications, provide rational reconstruction of existing social institutions and practices, and facilitate ‘normative forecasting’.

><><><>< “A Theory of Sexual Rights” Hallie Liberto (University of Connecticut) Without moral rights, it is hard to give a satisfying account of the importance of sexual consent. Harm avoidance, the exercise of autonomy – neither of these explanations for the importance of consent capture the array of common sexual cases and the importance of consent in those cases. I am going to propose a theory of rights with a metaphysical structure that almost any moral realist can endorse – that has within its scope, at the very least, many bodily rights, including many, but not all purported sexual rights. The rights featured in this account are not [necessarily] natural, but they are still real relations between persons. They are not purely instrumental - recognized for the sake of their conceptual use - but they are also not social kinds, arising from their recognition. After giving my account, I explain how it resolves some problems with consent that beleaguer rights theorists – for instance, it (i) handles problems with the moral specification of rights, and it (ii) avoids some counter-intuitive results of recent theorizing about deception and consent.

><><><>< “Effective Altruism: A Critique” Judith Lichtenberg (Georgetown University) I argue that despite assertions to the contrary effective altruism is just consequentialism in new garb and as such suffers from flaws, some well-known and some less so. If effective altruists are not consequentialist they owe us an account of how it avoids the sense of truism.

I distinguish two versions of consequentialism. According to maximizing consequentialism, one is morally obligated to do the most good one can. “Scalar” consequentialism does not require maximizing but also assumes that the more good one does the better. The former view (familiarly) conflicts with many of our moral beliefs, but so does the latter.

14

Critics have long pointed to deontological principles in conflict with consequentialism; others note its incompatibility with non-moral views about what it’s reasonable to demand of people and with people’s personal projects. I defend a different view: that effective altruism (and consequentialism generally) conflicts with non-deontological but central moral views we hold about what sorts of actions and people are morally admirable. Consequentialists often respond by disparaging these views as mere moral intuitions that we call common sense. Such suspicion of common sense is plausible when it conveniently buttresses our self-interest. But many of the moral intuitions in question support demanding moral commitments. So the usual reasons for suspecting moral intuitions and common sense don’t apply. And we have little independent reason for accepting the consequentialist framework that condemns them.

><><><>< “Desires, Interests, and Claim-Rights” Simon C. May (Florida State) Leif Wenar advances a kind-desire theory of claim-rights that he claims is superior to the justificatory interest theory. The essential difference between the two theories is that the kind-desire theory specifies the right-holder correlative to a duty-bearer by reference to her desire, qua member of a relevant kind, that the duty be performed, whereas the interest theory specifies the right-holder by reference to the justificatory relation between her interests and the duty. Wenar claims that the kind-desire theory is superior because it dispenses with any need to posit justificatory relations and because the concept of desire is explanatorily prior to the concept of interests. I argue (1) that Wenar’s theory also presupposes justificatory relations, (2) that the explanatory priority of desires to interests is irrelevant to the analysis of claim-rights, and (3) that the kind-desire theory is extensionally inadequate: since desires have a variety of different functions in a normative system, the kind-desire theory implausibly proliferates claim-rights.

><><><>< “Can We Live Without Thought Experiments?” Nenad Miščević (University of Maribor) Thought experiments are indispensable for moral and political philosophy. There is no general metaphysico-epistemological impossibility to reach valid normative conclusions from them and from the resulting moral-political intuitions. The biases often present in moral “intuiting” can be dealt with; some by re-designing the thought experiments, some by paying attention to weaknesses threatening at each stage in the life of a thought experiment.

><><><><

15

“What Am I Obligated to Do When It Won’t Make a Difference?” Julia Nefsky (University of Toronto) This talk is about individual moral obligations in contexts of “collective impact”. These are contexts in which if enough people act in certain ways rather than others, certain harms or injustices can be avoided or reduced, but in which no individual such act seems to make a difference. Examples include our transportation choices and climate change; voting in large national elections; consumer choices and their effects on workers, animals and the environment. In this talk, I will argue that our obligations with respect to these contexts are – to borrow a term from Kant – imperfect. They are obligations to make the relevant choices enough of the time, rather than obligations (even pro tanto obligations) to act in the relevant way whenever one can. So, on the view I will advance, whether or not you are acting wrongly in these contexts can (usually) only be determined by looking at the choices you make over time, rather than at any particular moment. The ideas in this talk build on other work of mine on collective impact cases, and so I will begin the talk with a brief introduction to this other work.

><><><>< “Moderate Error Theory and Non-Cognitivism” Matjaž Potrč, Vojko Strahovnik (University of Ljubljana) A recently proposed distinction between standard and moderate (moral) error theory (Olson) opens the door for a particular kind of moderate moral error theory, a non-cognitivist one. This sort of error theory was first proposed by Axel Hägerström under the influence of Franz Brentano and Alexius Meinong, especially in respect to their theories of psychological acts. In the paper we will first try to pinpoint the exact formulation of moderate error theory. Next, since moderate error theory seems to widen the scope of theories that fall under this description, a related question is whether there are other non-cognitivist or expressivist positions that can be characterized as a moderate error theory. We will specifically focus on cognitivist expressivism (Horgan & Timmons) and argue that this view is also to be considered as kind of moderate error theory.

><><><>< “Harming, Failing to Benefit, and the Causing/Allowing Distinction” Duncan Purves (New York University) Abstract: I argue for two claims regarding the distinction between harming and failing to benefit. First, I argue that the counterfactual comparative analysis of harm must appeal to the distinction between causing and allowing an upshot in order to

16

adequately distinguish harming from failing to benefit. In arguing for this first claim, I demonstrate the inadequacy of two recent replies to the problem of distinguishing harms and failures to benefit and then propose new version of the counterfactual comparative analysis of harm that solves the problem. Second, I argue that the counterfactual comparative analysis is not alone in relying on the ‘causing/allowing distinction’; a number of competing analyses of harm rely on the distinction between causing and allowing in distinguishing between harms and failures to benefit. If these two claims are correct, then a third interesting claim follows: the metaphysical and moral distinction between harming and failing to benefit broadly depends on the metaphysical and moral distinction between causing and allowing. Thus, whether it is a virtue of an analysis of harm that it distinguishes metaphysically and morally between harming and failing to benefit depends on whether there is sense to be made of the causing/allowing distinction.

><><><>< “The Normative Structure of Self-Presentation: A Sketch” Nick Riggle (University of San Diego) I motivate and develop a way of thinking about the normative structure of self-presentation, which I characterize as a kind of interpersonal appreciative practice. The view focuses on the idea of a ‘social opening’, which is a kind of opportunity for the presentation of individuality. The norms of self-presentation concern ways of creating, responding, and failing to respond to social openings. A close look at these matters reveals uncharted ethical territory, and I sketch a map of it. I then use the theory to consider whether we can understand moral values like honesty, trust, and equal consideration as traits that facilitate the practice of self-presentation.

><><><>< “Moral Disagreement is Special” Regina Rini (New York University) Most of the literature on moral disagreement is framed entirely in epistemic terms. I argue that this framing is misleading, as moral disagreement is special and unlike peer disagreement in other epistemic domains. I defend the claim that peer moral disagreement gives us reason to reduce confidence in disputed moral beliefs, but not for epistemic reasons. Rather, we have moral reason to do so. Reducing confidence in this way is morally required by recognition respect for the agency of the peer with whom we disagree.

><><><><

17

“A Theory of a Better Morality” Geoff Sayre-McCord (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) Normally, there is a sharp distinction between a better theory of X and a theory of a better X. That the theory of a better X is a theory according to which things are different from the way one’s (so far) best theory says they are is (normally) no reason whatsoever to think one’s (so far) best theory is wrong, just reason to wish X were different (and, if it is possible, reason to work to change X). That it would be better if all everyone were treated as equals is no reason whatsoever to think that they are; that it would be better that death came quickly, painlessly, and late in life is no reason whatsoever to think it does; that it would be better if we could fly is no reason whatsoever to think that we can… In contrast (I maintain) when the subject matter is normative, this normally sharp distinction is elided and the difference between one’s theory of the best X (the best morality, the best standards of inference, the best rules of justification…) and one’s (so far) best theory of X necessarily provides a reason (though perhaps not a decisive reason) to think one’s (so far) best theory is wrong. The elision plays an essential role in a range of arguments concerning morality, practical rationality, and theoretical rationality, a few of which I discuss. Yet it smacks of depending crucially and unacceptably on wishful thinking – on supposing that the fact that things would be better if only they were a certain way provides some reason to think they are that way. As a result, it invites invocation of a restricted defense of “Wouldn’t it be nice that p, therefore p” reasoning. I think that the invitation should be resisted. The elision is to be defended, I argue, not as an instance of (putatively defensible) wishful thinking but as a reflection a constraint on acceptable normative theories that is itself explained by a distinctive characteristic of normative concepts that sets them all apart from descriptive concepts.

><><><>< “Two Conceptions of Children’s Welfare” Anthony Skelton (Western Ontario) What makes a child’s life go well? This paper examines two answers to this question, one found in Wayne Sumner’s Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics and another found in Richard Kraut’s What is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well-Being. This paper argues that neither view is entirely satisfactory. A more attractive view about the nature of children’s welfare combines elements of both accounts. This paper has five sections. The first examines possible reasons why philosophers have neglected to discuss children’s welfare. The second outlines and evaluates Sumner’s position. The third outlines and evaluates Kraut’s view. The fourth sketches an account of children’s

18

welfare that rivals those discussed in the preceding sections. The fifth section concludes.

><><><>< “Subjectivism and Reasons to be Moral” David Sobel (Syracuse University) Subjective accounts of reasons for action seem seriously counter-intuitive because they maintain that some possible agents lack any reason to be moral. This paper aims to respond to this worry about the view and to blunt this criticism of it. I stress explanations for our intuitions in such cases that are compatible with subjectivism. Everyone we know has significant reasons to not brutalize the vulnerable, the subjectivist can remind us, and they can remind us how robust such reasons are for the sort of agents we are familiar with. Agents that lack subjectivist reasons to be decent to others would be profoundly alien creatures, in a variety of important ways quite unlike those agents we encounter on a daily basis. It would be less surprising if our intuitions about quite alien creatures were misleading. Furthermore, I stress several advantages of subjective accounts that may be able to outweigh the remaining counter-intuitiveness of the view, especially when we keep in mind that subjectivism’s rivals will have their own implausibilities and counter-intuitive consequences to deal with.

><><><>< “Women’s property rights: Rethinking (early) modern theories of property and ownership” Amelie Stuart (University of Graz) A central question of political philosophy concerns the justification of private property and ownership. Most liberal theories derive citizenship and its rights and duties from the right to own private property. Thus, denying a person the right to acquire and own private property also means excluding her from political participation and from being a free and equal citizen (not to mention autonomy and means of subsistence). Moreover, if we look at ownership and the justification of private property from the point of Locke’s and Hegel’s theories, we see how essential the ownership of oneself is for justifying the right to own private property and for respecting each other as equals. Assuming that the theoretical foundation of almost all (early) modern theories of property and ownership was used to deny women the right to own property, I will argue that their main premises need to be modified to allow for a theory of equal ownership rights. For this I will analyze the social, legal, and normative conditions of property rights in the theories of Locke, Rousseau and Kant. Also, I will examine the dichotomy between the public and private sphere, as it forms the background of liberal theories of property, especially concerning women’s ownership of their work.

19

><><><><

“Responsibility without Wrongdoing” Julie Tannenbaum (Pomona College) Most discussions of moral responsibility are either about what it takes to be a responsible agent (i.e., the criteria for being someone who can be praise and blameworthy) or assume the person is an agent and focus on whether what the agent did was wrong or blameworthy. I will only address the latter and argue that wrongdoing and blame do not exhaust the ways in which agents can be responsible for the bad outcomes of their actions. I aim to establish that there are many types of responsibility that fall under the banner “responsibility without wrongdoing.” This makes a difference to how we should relate to each other in the aftermath of harming or failing to aid. Some people have blown off their responsibility when they shouldn't have and others having been holding themselves responsible -- or second and third parties have been holding them responsible -- as if they were wrongdoers and/or blameworthy, when this isn’t so.

><><><>< “Affect, Value, and Self-Understanding” Daniel Vanello (University of Warwick) In “Values and Secondary Qualities”, McDowell argues for a response-dependent conception of the objectivity of value according to which according to which the value of an object is understood in terms of the object meriting the subject’s appropriate affective-cum-motivational response. Yet once we try to cash out the notion of merit, or of what it means for an affective-cum-motivational response to be appropriate, we revert to mentioning that the response’s appropriateness derives from the object being valuable. For instance, the fearfulness of an object is understood in terms of the object meriting a fearful response yet the appropriateness of a fearful response derives from the object being fearful. Notoriously, this means that there is a circularity in McDowell’s account: the subject learns what the evaluative import of an object is by rendering intelligible her affective-cum-motivational responses towards the object, yet she does this by mentioning the evaluative import of the object. In this talk I want to defend McDowell’s account by developing the notion of response-dependence. I do so by looking at the way it liaises with McDowell’s repeated observation that rendering one’s affective-cum-motivational responses intelligible is a form of self-understanding. In other words, I want to develop the notion of response-dependence by asking what is entailed in this self-understanding, such that (i) the circularity involved is not problematic in that it does entail an uninformative conception of value; and such that (ii) understanding oneself constitutes the objectivity of value, and therefore potentially also a sort of evaluative knowledge.

20

><><><><

“More Agreeable Moral Disagreement” Justin Weinberg (University of South Carolina) Judging from their (okay, our) teaching and writing, moral philosophers tend to take a dim view of moral disagreement. It is either a problem to be solved or, if unsolvable, then an obstacle to be accommodated. This view is not without its reasons: moral disagreement can lead to violent conflict, for example, or immoral behavior by the incorrect and unconvinced. Yet the badness of moral disagreement is often overstated, and its upside underappreciated. This paper aims to correct this. Understanding some of the epistemic and psychological reasons behind moral disagreement, as well as what does and doesn’t follow from it, can affect how we feel about it, making moral disagreement more agreeable, and this in turn, has implications for moral philosophy and our engagement with disagreement in our personal lives.

><><><>< “Moral Advice, Moral Worth, and Joint Agency” Eric Wiland (University of Missouri-St. Louis) There are many alleged problems with trusting another person’s moral testimony or advice. Here’s one. When you V on Sophie’s advice, you do the right thing in the sense that you do better by V-ing than you would by opting for any alternative to V-ing. But it’s argued by some that you don’t do as well as you would do if instead you had V’d from your own understanding why V-ing is the thing to do. A person who Vs because he himself understands why V-ing is the thing to do (call him Otto) does better than you do when you V on Sophie’s advice. The (moral) value of Otto’s action is greater than the value of yours, this despite the fact that both Otto and you do the same thing. Thus, trusting another’s moral advice is never the best way to act; at most, it is a regrettable way to cope with one’s own imperfections as well as one can. Call this the moral worth objection. (Nickel, McGrath, Hills). There are several rejoinders to this objection to trusting advice. Here I launch a new response. Even if the advisee’s V-ing is not as good as Otto’s V-ing, some action of the duo comprising adviser and advisee—some action of theirs that involves V-ing—may have all the moral worth one might want. This action of the duo can be as morally worthy as Otto’s V-ing. Thus acting on moral advice does not thereby banish moral worth from the scene. Rather, the action of the joint agent comprising adviser and advisee is the bearer of moral worth. This, I believe, largely vindicates moral advice against the moral worth objection. I spend the talk trying to make this initially wacky thought less wacky, mostly by thinking about joint agency generally, and by looking at the notion of complicit liability in the criminal law.